log_trade

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description discloses the default account behavior ('If account is omitted, automatically uses your currently active trading account') and the return value ('Returns the full populated trade record'). No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden; it could additionally state whether this is a write operation (though '[WRITE ACTION]' implies mutation) or any side effects, but the core behavior is clear.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded with the [WRITE ACTION] tag and the core action, followed by default behavior and return value. The example questions, while helpful, could be seen as slightly verbose, but they aid understanding without being excessive.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the 17 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: writable action, account default, and return value. It could be more complete by mentioning required fields or validation, but the examples and parameter details in the schema likely suffice for an agent to use the tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, meaning every parameter is already documented with descriptions in the schema. The description adds no new parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Log a new trade entry into your TradeZylo journal with complete trade parameters.' It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like update_trade and close_trade by focusing on creation, and from read tools like get_trades.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Three example questions illustrate when to use this tool (logging new trades with various fields), and the account-omission behavior is explained. However, it doesn't explicitly say when not to use this tool (e.g., use update_trade for modifications, close_trade for exits), which would elevate it to a 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.